R. RAMANUJAM, J.

(1) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the appellants application-CMP No. 6122 of 1998-for condoning the delay of 450 days in filing the appeal-A.S. (SR) No. 19289 of 1998-and consequently dismissing the appeal itself.

(2) THE appellant is the 6th defendant in o. S. No. 29 of 1988 on the file of the Sub- court, Siddipet. The 1st respondent herein is her younger sister. Respondents 3 and 4 herein are the other sisters of the appellant. Second respondent herein is the husband of the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit against the appellant, respondents 2 to 4 and also against her father and mother (who are arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit) for declaration of her title and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing Municipal No. 8-2-38 to 8-2-43 (excluding the shop and room sold to one Sri Vanga Raji Reddy). The case of the 1st respondent-plaintiff is that the suit schedule property was gifted to her by her father, defendant no. 1, under a registered gift deed dated 26- 10-1971 (Ex. A-1 ). Possession of the gifted property was delivered to her on that date itself and mutation of her name in the Municipal records was also done on the strength of an affidavit filed by her father (D-1) and since the defendants were threatening to interfere with her possession with ulterior motives, she filed the said suit.

(3) THE case of the appellant and the other defendants is that the gift deed executed in favour of the 1st respondent-plaintiff was only a nominal one and not intended to be acted upon, and that the 1st respondent-plaintiff herself reconveyed the property subsequently by means of a registered gift deed dated 18-5-1973 (Ex. B-1) to her father, who inturn gifted one shop each to his four daughters. The 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit. The appellant herein also gave evidence as D.W.3.

(4) ON a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Subordinate judge decreed the suit on 26-7-1996. The appellant applied, through her Advocate, for certified copies of the judgment and decree on 17-8-1996 and the same were delivered to her advocate-Sri L. Sai Baba-on 14-10-1996. On 16-3-1998, the appellant filed the appeal - A. S. (SR) No. 19289/98-in this Court with a delay condonation petition to condone the delay of 450 days in filing the appeal In support of the said petition, she filed an affidavit. Her Advocate also filed a third party affidavit. Briefly stated the averments in the appellants aforesaid affidavit are: that some time after her deposition was recorded by the Trial Court she was informed by the respondents that Sujatha (Plaintiff) did not succeed in her attempts to dispossess her from her house. Thereafter, she went to her advocate - Sri Sai Baba-and gave him money with a request to obtain certified copies of judgment and decree and send the same to her address. Sri Sai Baba, Advocate, assured her that no sooner he gets the certified copies, he will send the same to her address and she need not go to his office. Since she was informed that the plaintiff lost her battle, she did not concentrate much and was waiting for the certified copies of judgment and decree from her advocate. On 13-3-1998, the 1st respondent- plaintiff visited her house along with L. Lakshmi, 4th respondent herein (5th defendant in the suit) and asked her to vacate the premises stating that she got the same by a decree from the Court. When she reminded about the representation made by the 1st respondent-plaintiff and others that the 1st respondent had lost the case, she smiled at her and stated that she had kept her in dark. Thereafter she went to her Advocate and enquired about the certified copies of judgment and decree. After making some search from his records, he has handed over the certified copies of judgment and decree. Then she got the papers and handed over the same to her Advocate at Hyderabad, who after going through them, informed her that the Trial Court has passed the decree in favour of the 1st respondent-plaintiff on 26-7-1996; that the copy application was made on 17-8-1996 and the certified copies of Judgment and decree were received by her Advocate on 14-10-1996. She further stated that she was a victim of misrepresentation and also laches on the part of her Advocate, who did not send her the certified copies of judgment and decree as promised.

(5) THE appellants Advocate in the Trial court-Sri L. Sai Baba-also filed an affidavit stating that on 17-8-1996 the appellant approached him and requested him to apply for certified copies of judgment and decree stating that she has been informed by her sisters that the said suit has been dismissed and she requires the copies of judgment and decree. Accordingly, he applied for the same on 17-8-1996 and asked the appellant to approach him for taking the certified copies after receiving a letter from him. He further stated that he obtained the certified copies of judgment and decree on 14-10-1996, but could not inform the appellant due to over-sight and heavy schedule. In the 2nd week of March, 1998 the appellant came to him and requested him to hand over the certified copies of judgment and decree. He then searched his office records, found the certified copies and handed over the same to her. On her request, he then told her that she had lost the case and advised her to prefer an appeal.

(6) THE 1st respondent-plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit specifically denying each and every averment made by the appellant.

(7) BEFORE the learned Single Judge it was argued on behalf of the appellant that: (a) she has a strong case in appeal and there was no mala fides on her part in not preferring the appeal within time; (b) due to the misrepresentation of the 1st and 4th respondents, she thought that she had succeeded in the suit and had waited for the certified copies of judgment and decree from her Advocate; and (c) therefore, the delay of 450 days in preferring the appeal should be condoned.

(8) ON a consideration of the averments in the affidavits and counter affidavit, the rival contentions and the depositions of the 1st respondent-plaintiff (P. W. 1) and the appellant (D. W. 3) and her husband (D. W. 4), the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that: (i) It is difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that she had a strong case in appeal; (ii) the allegations made in the appellants affidavit regarding the misrepresentation made by 1st and 4th respondents herein do not appear to be true; and (iii) the appellant had failed to establish sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. Accordingly, the learned Single judge rejected the application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the appeal.

(9) THE learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the very same contentions urged before the learned Single Judge viz. , (a) that the appellant has a strong case in appeal; (b) that there were no mala fides on her part in not preferring the appeal within the time; and (c) that the delay in preferring the appeal was caused due to misrepresentation of the 1st and 4th respondents herein. In support of these contentions, he relied upon the decision of a division Bench of this Court in S.G. Traders west Godavari v. Commercial Tax Officer and the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy. He further contended that the appellant should not be punished for the laches of her Advocate and the learned Single Judge failed to properly exercise his jurisdiction and grossly erred in rejecting the delay condonation application.

(10) SECTION 5 of the Limitation Act empowers the Court, in its discretion, to condone the delay in preferring an appeal if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for the delay.

(11) A close reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the Legislature has, advisedly, left the term "sufficient cause:" undefined and unillustrated, for what is sufficient cause in one case may not be so in another case. Thus, the term is kept elastic and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the court to do substantial justice considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding the condonation of delay, the superior courts and the Apex Court have issued several guidelines, from time to time, as to how the discretion has to be exercised. The sum and substance of those guidelines is that the discretion has to be exercised judiciously and the approach of the Court should be liberal and pragmatic but not pedantic. The guiding principle is that justice should not be sacrificed on the alter of technicalities. But, at the same time, the Court should not lose sight of the statutory requirement of existence of "sufficient cause" and condone the delay on equitable grounds. See the decisions of the Supreme court in Collector, Land Acquisition, anantnag v. Katiji; Special Tehsildar, Land acquisition, Kerala v. K. V. Ayisumma; State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani; and P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala.

(12) WE have carefully considered the appellants contentions in the light of the aforesaid guidelines. In spite of giving our anxious consideration, we are not able to persuade ourselves to accept any one of the contentions of the appellant. On a close reading of the pleadings and the depositions of the 1st respondent-plaintiff, the 4th respondent herein (who was examined as D. W. 1), the appellant herein (who was examined as D. W. 3) and her husband (who was examined as D. W. 4), which are available on record, and the judgment of the Trial Court, we are not able to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that she has a strong case in the appeal. In our considered view, the Trial Court is correct in decreeing the suit after rightly holding that Ex. B-1 gift deed dated 18-5-1973, alleged to have been executed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff in favour of her father, is a forged document.

(13) COMING to the averments in the appellants affidavit and the affidavit of her Counsel in the Trial Court, we find that they not only lack in bona fides, but also contradictory on material points. It is difficult to believe the appellants version that she was not told about the result of the suit by her Advocate when she approached him (after the alleged misrepresentation by her sisters) with a request to obtain the certified copies of the judgment and decree. It is also difficult to believe that she had requested her Advocate to send the certified copies of judgment and decree to her address by post. The appellants husband (who was examined as D.W. 4) was admittedly working as a Teacher at Siddipet. In the natural course of events either the appellant or her husband would be present at the time of arguments of the suit or atleast they would have enquired their Advocate about the result of the suit. It is very difficult to believe that after recording of their evidence the appellant and her husband kept quiet without visiting their Advocate, who is residing in the same town. It is also difficult to believe the appellants version that she had requested her Advocate to send the certified copies of judgment and decree by post to her house when both of them are residing at Siddipet, which is a small town. This statement of the appellant was also contradicted by her Advocate. In his affidavit, he stated that he has asked her to approach him for taking certified copies of judgment and decree after receiving a letter from him. It is equally difficult to accept the version of her advocate in the Trial Court. The averments in his affidavit are not specific but vague. It is hard to believe his version that when the appellant approached him with a request to apply for the certified copies of judgment and decree, he promised to do so without even informing her about the result of the suit.

(14) THE Division Bench decision of this court in S.G. Traders case (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant, does not lend any support to the appellants contention. In that case, the Division Bench found that the applicant therein has a strong case on merits inasmuch as similar relief was given by the Tribunal for the previous years. As already pointed out, that is not the case here. Likewise, the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan s case (supra) will not be of any help of the appellant. In that case, on a consideration of the entire material on record, the apex Court found that the Counsel for the applicant therein was guilty of gross negligence and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum has awarded Rs.50,000/- to the applicant therein against his Counsel as compensation. As already stated, the facts of this case are entirely different. In our considered view, the appellant has miserably failed to show "sufficient cause for the delay of 450 days in preferring the appeal.

(15) FOR the aforementioned reasons, we do not see any error in the exercise of his jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge, warranting interference. The Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.